• I've created a thread for feedback on the reaction/likes feature Feedback thread
  • You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

I have met LENR in real life today!

Peter i

Critical Thinker
Peter i
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
334
Location
Denmark
Or rather, I have met someone who seriously seemed to believe in it.

The surprise was, that it was an otherwise serious and competent person hosting him.

And a poor grad student was building a "model T test kit" like this one:
http://www.lookingforheat.com/shop/diy-kits/lenr-test-kit-mk1-model-t/


It involved some of the lousiest engineering practice I have seen for a long time, among other things regulating the furnace by switching on and off the mains voltage to the power supply with a PID-controller and an SSR, rather than switching the low voltage DC between the power supply and furnace (could be done with a MOSFET or a power transistor).

And it intends to measure minute temperature variations with Chinese type K thermocouples.

And a PWM motor controller has been placed between the power supply and furnace to chop up the current in a magical 10 kHz square sine wave, that is essential for the fusion.
Should it be adjusted, this would further serve to screw up the PID-values.

And he got offended when it dawned on me what was going on, and I said:"Oh, you are attempting cold fusion?".





I honestly thought, that cold fusion died long ago!
 
On another note, he was also an avid believer in some russian named Vysotskii, whom he claimed had trained bacteria to make Caesium-137 decay a lot faster than normally.
 
Last edited:
Peter i said:
On another note, he was also an avid believer in some russian named Vysotskii, whom he claimed had trained bacteria to make Caesium-137 decay a lot faster than normally.
Click to expand...

Now I have a picture in my head of a Russian scientist standing over a petri dish with a clicker and a few pieces of extra nutritious agar :D
 
Turgor said:
Now I have a picture in my head of a Russian scientist standing over a petri dish with a clicker and a few pieces of extra nutritious agar :D
Click to expand...

I saw him leaning over the petri dish with a tiny chair and whip in his hands.
 
It seems that Vysotskii has actually managed to publish i "Annals of nuclear energy" in 2013.

I found a claimed "in print" and the paper shows up when searching for it.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...dioactive_waste_in_growing_biological_systems

I'm not a nuclear physicist, but my ********-o-meter rings loudly when reading it.
http://vglobale.it/public/files/2013/ANE_3339.pdf

Speeding up radioactive decay 30 times with regular baker's yeast should have rocked the scientific world..... If it really had happened.

Not to mention, that it is very unlikely IMHO that it would not alreade have been a problem for anybody trying to establish the laws of nuclear decay, if yeast in your beaker could offset the results so much.
 
Last edited:
"LENR" = "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"? Or some such? I initially took it to be some sort of railroad -- the London and East Northern RR or something like that.
 
Exactly!

"Low energy nuclear reactions" is just a modern word for "cold fusion" or "alchemy".

Just like "creationism" became "intelligent design" when "creationism" started to stink too much.


The components sold to build the "reactor" above, are by the way the cheapest possible from ebay.
And they want to show nuclear reactions taking place, by comparing temperature in the two tubes.... Of which only one is actually giving a feedback to the PID and the other is just connected in series.
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
Ah, you obviously have never attempted to travel by train in the UK.
They use buses instead.
Click to expand...
the New York New Haven Railroad used to do this on some of their branch lines back in the 1960's when running trains no longer paid, and before they just gave up altogether. They must have found some junkyard somewhere, and dragged out the most incredible antiquated, smelly old turtleback buses, which they would send careening up the back roads, broken shocks clanking, and rarely on schedule. they would drop you off in the middle of nowhere, in the dark. The railway stations, of course, were long gone, converted to hippie shops and private homes. It was a fearsome experience, one of those things that's fun to recall as an episode in one's wasted youth, as long as it need not be repeated.
 
The guys around here who were getting caught up in in took a closer, critical look.

The conclusion was, not surprisingly, that it was an orgy of bad experimental design and procedures, and that the "gurus" Rossi and Cellini had very little to hang their hats on.

Experimental details were "secret", raw data were "secret" and any critical question was met with technobabble, change of subject or downright anger.


.... and no-one has touched the "experimental set-up" since.

:thumbsup:
 
Yep, home spun uneducated engineers and physicists:

I recently discovered that a co-worker believes in a form of perpetual motion machine. Specifically: uses the DC power supply from an automobile engine to dissociate water into oxygen and hydrogen, then passes the hydrogen back through the air intake to the engine.

According to him he has seen the design for this and that if one just tweaks it enough it is possible to wean off the gasoline supply and run the engine and power the car only from the hydrogen produced. All you need gasoline for is to get the motor running in the first place.
 
jaydeehess said:
Yep, home spun uneducated engineers and physicists:

I recently discovered that a co-worker believes in a form of perpetual motion machine. Specifically: uses the DC power supply from an automobile engine to dissociate water into oxygen and hydrogen, then passes the hydrogen back through the air intake to the engine.

According to him he has seen the design for this and that if one just tweaks it enough it is possible to wean off the gasoline supply and run the engine and power the car only from the hydrogen produced. All you need gasoline for is to get the motor running in the first place.
Click to expand...

I've met quite a few of those.

What I normally do, is to split up the process:
- combustion engine, approx. 25% efficient
- most of the usable force from the engine goes to propulsion
- a bit of the energy goes to the alternator
- the alternator is able to convert about half the motion delivered to it into electricity
- the electrolysis system is able to convert about half the electricity to chemical energy (hydrogen)
- .... which is, tadaaaaa!, fed into the 25% efficient combustion engine


It normally works.

If it doesn't work, I ask them if they want to play the same game with money.
They start out with dkk 100 (of their money), and for each round , I get the loss in each step, and they get the extra money generated.
 
Last edited:
Peter i said:
I've met quite a few of those.

What I normally do, is to split up the process:
- combustion engine, approx. 25% efficient
- most of the usable force from the engine goes to propulsion
- a bit of the energy goes to the alternator
- the alternator is able to convert about half the motion delivered to it into electricity
- the electrolysis system is able to convert about half the electricity to chemical energy (hydrogen)
- .... which is, tadaaaaa!, fed into the 25% efficient combustion engine


It normally works.

If it doesn't work, I ask them if they want to play the same game with money.
They start out with dkk 100 (of their money), and for each round , I get the loss in each step, and they get the extra money generated.
Click to expand...

I too have read about several such schemes. They all seem to make the unspoken assumption that the electrical power from the alternator comes at no cost in input energy. That is, you can come out ahead if you use an electrolyzer that generates twice as much hydrogen/oxygen even though it draws twice as much current from the alternator. That this extra current places a greater mechanical load on the engine driving the alternator is ignored.
 
Peter i said:
I've met quite a few of those.

What I normally do, is to split up the process:
- combustion engine, approx. 25% efficient
- most of the usable force from the engine goes to propulsion
- a bit of the energy goes to the alternator
- the alternator is able to convert about half the motion delivered to it into electricity
- the electrolysis system is able to convert about half the electricity to chemical energy (hydrogen)
- .... which is, tadaaaaa!, fed into the 25% efficient combustion engine


It normally works.

If it doesn't work, I ask them if they want to play the same game with money.
They start out with dkk 100 (of their money), and for each round , I get the loss in each step, and they get the extra money generated.
Click to expand...

And I get my money from grease! What's the problem?
 
Didymus said:
I too have read about several such schemes. They all seem to make the unspoken assumption that the electrical power from the alternator comes at no cost in input energy. That is, you can come out ahead if you use an electrolyzer that generates twice as much hydrogen/oxygen even though it draws twice as much current from the alternator. That this extra current places a greater mechanical load on the engine driving the alternator is ignored.
Click to expand...

That is what I tried to explain to him. That the alternator takes some energy to turn AND that the more current drawn from it, the more energy it takes to turn it, that the electrical current it creates is not free.

>>>>blank look<<<<
He said that Mythbusters tried it and confirmed it. I did a quick search but did not find the episode.

In college we our prof demonstrated this with a DC generator. It was powered by a hand crank. First the student cranks it with no load on the circuit other than the 10Mohm volt meter. Easy peasy,
Next he puts on one 60 watt incandescent light bulb, a little resistance to turn the crank and keep the bulb glowing. Then he puts 10 , 60 Watt light bulbs in series and it gets noticeably harder to crank and keep the bulbs lit.

Then we went through the math on why.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
That is what I tried to explain to him. That the alternator takes some energy to turn AND that the more current drawn from it, the more energy it takes to turn it, that the electrical current it creates is not free.

>>>>blank look<<<<
He said that Mythbusters tried it and confirmed it. I did a quick search but did not find the episode.

In college we our prof demonstrated this with a DC generator. It was powered by a hand crank. First the student cranks it with no load on the circuit other than the 10Mohm volt meter. Easy peasy,
Next he puts on one 60 watt incandescent light bulb, a little resistance to turn the crank and keep the bulb glowing. Then he puts 10 , 60 Watt light bulbs in series and it gets noticeably harder to crank and keep the bulbs lit.

Then we went through the math on why.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but that should be "in parallel."
 
Even though the internal combustion engine sends 75% of the combustion heat out the tailpipe, you can't even effectively harvest that heat: if you shoved a Thermoelectric generator in the exhaust stream it would create a cold spot the engine needs to work to shove the exhaust past.

The margins are very narrow.
 
Mythbusters did try it. They got nothing from the electrolysis so they tried hydrogen from a tank. It quite literally blew up in their faces.

Electrolysis doesn't work well without a substantial amount of electrolyte in the water, either.
 
Electrolysis is used to make fuel on site for jewelers blow torches,
Aquaflame systems have an informative web site.
(No affiliation)
 
Last edited:
james2001 said:
Electrolysis is used to make fuel on site for jewelers blow torches,
Aquaflame systems have an informative web site.
(No affiliation)
Click to expand...
"Water torches" in jewelry are a great niche market. They eliminate the need to store oxygen and fuel on-site, eliminate the necessity of gas lines, cylinders, inspections, licensing, permitting, etc. They're perfect for repair shops, where you might need to re-prong a stone setting or size a ring or do a light soldering job. They're great for occasional use.

However, on a cost-per-BTU basis, they are incredibly expensive and remarkably inefficient. Their virtue is that you can buy one and plunk it down in your middle-of-the-shopping-mall kiosk and that's it. They're designed to where the local regulating agencies have no reason to object to or regulate their presence.

A production jewelry shop, however, would use a regular oxyfuel torch setup, as it has a much higher capacity for heat (work larger pieces, actually melt gold and silver for casting, etc) and a better control over the flame.

So, water torches are the right tool for a specific environment, but pretty useless in a large jewelry operation. Perfect example of eliminating one set of inconveniences by introducing a different set of inconveniences.

Beanbag
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Even though the internal combustion engine sends 75% of the combustion heat out the tailpipe, you can't even effectively harvest that heat: if you shoved a Thermoelectric generator in the exhaust stream it would create a cold spot the engine needs to work to shove the exhaust past.

The margins are very narrow.
Click to expand...

What about the Quantum Afterburner?
 
EHocking said:
Ah, you obviously have never attempted to travel by train in the UK.
They use buses instead.
Click to expand...

Some few years ago, my wife, stepson, his wife & I traveled extensively throughout England, Scotland & Wales by train & found Brit Rail prompt & reliable. Not always to our complete comfort, but quite sufficient to our needs.

Obviously off the topic of cold fusion or its various "incarnations, mayhap incantations," but a nod to what actually works to the satisfaction of the user.
 
Last edited:
Had someone ask about https://synthestech.com/ wondering if it was real (sigh). I was surprised I didn't see the name pop up here before and thought I'd mention it.

The first part of the white paper on the site is actually somewhat nice, focusing on why materials are useful and expensive and detailing the difficulty in (real) transmutation. Then they explain why they need money to make them cheaper (thanks to LENR), and how you'll reclaim your investment in only a few years!
 
Peter i said:
I've met quite a few of those.

What I normally do, is to split up the process:
- combustion engine, approx. 25% efficient
- most of the usable force from the engine goes to propulsion
- a bit of the energy goes to the alternator
- the alternator is able to convert about half the motion delivered to it into electricity
- the electrolysis system is able to convert about half the electricity to chemical energy (hydrogen)
- .... which is, tadaaaaa!, fed into the 25% efficient combustion engine


It normally works.

If it doesn't work, I ask them if they want to play the same game with money.
They start out with dkk 100 (of their money), and for each round , I get the loss in each step, and they get the extra money generated.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what casinos do, and it works (for the casino).
 
jaydeehess said:
In college we our prof demonstrated this with a DC generator. It was powered by a hand crank. First the student cranks it with no load on the circuit other than the 10Mohm volt meter. Easy peasy,
Next he puts on one 60 watt incandescent light bulb, a little resistance to turn the crank and keep the bulb glowing. Then he puts 10 , 60 Watt light bulbs in series and it gets noticeably harder to crank and keep the bulbs lit.

Then we went through the math on why.
Click to expand...


I think this is an experiment we should do with all these guys. I suspect a lot of them have some unexamined assumptions that the load on the generator doesn't matter, that it will just magically produce however much electricity they need. There's a mental disconnect between the mechanical work and the electric output.

At the very least, we might tire them out enough to shut them up for a day or two :D
 
Peter i said:
It seems that Vysotskii has actually managed to publish i "Annals of nuclear energy" in 2013.

I found a claimed "in print" and the paper shows up when searching for it.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...dioactive_waste_in_growing_biological_systems

I'm not a nuclear physicist, but my ********-o-meter rings loudly when reading it.
http://vglobale.it/public/files/2013/ANE_3339.pdf

Speeding up radioactive decay 30 times with regular baker's yeast should have rocked the scientific world..... If it really had happened.

Not to mention, that it is very unlikely IMHO that it would not alreade have been a problem for anybody trying to establish the laws of nuclear decay, if yeast in your beaker could offset the results so much.
Click to expand...

The paper produces this particular gem:
We believe that all the observed isotopic effects (in case they are real and supported by adequate and reliable measurements) can be characterized as the ‘‘regular’’ process of transmutation of isotopes and elements, which occurs in biological systems, and whose effectivity is determined precisely by the specific characteristics and behavior of such systems.
Click to expand...

I mean, wow. Just wow. Biological systems produce transmutation of of elements. Who knew?

Looks like the old alchemists were on the wrong track. They should have been gardeners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom